California May Ban CLEAR Airport Security As We Know It

POLITICO reports on how California is considering changing some laws, which would ban CLEAR airport security as it’s currently implemented.

For those not familiar, CLEAR is a private company that lets you expedite the security screening process at select airports using your biometric data, in exchange for a fee (typically $189 per year, but it’s also covered by some credit cards). CLEAR verifies your identity, and then escorts you past the TSA ID check.

More from OMAAT IHG Premier Card 140K Bonus Points Welcome Offer Read more

California lawmakers draft bill aimed at CLEAR

A pair of California state senators from Orange County have drafted a bill that would prevent third party vendors like CLEAR from operating at existing security checkpoints in the state. With this proposal, CLEAR would need to gets its own dedicated security lanes (rather than funneling into the main security lanes), or lose the ability to operate at airports.

Now, the concept of CLEAR funding its own security lines isn’t so straightforward. This would need federal approval, since the TSA oversees security at US airports. Furthermore, most airports don’t exactly have a lot of extra space where security checkpoints could be expanded to.

The people behind this bill insist that they don’t want to ban CLEAR, and that they have “every confidence” in CLEAR’s ability to “re-engineer its business.” The bill would allow CLEAR to continue to operate until current contracts run out, and the timeline could be extended if CLEAR is making a good faith effort to change its operations.

In terms of the economic impact on California, CLEAR paid airports in the state $13 million in 2023, and a total of $49 million since 2012. This accounts for just a tiny percentage of overall concessions at airports.

Here’s what Josh Newman, the Democrat who authored the bill, had to say:

“The least you can expect when you have to go through the security line at the airport is that you don’t suffer the indignity of somebody pushing you out of the way to let the rich person pass you.”

Meanwhile here’s what Janet Nguyen, a Republican in support of the bill, had to say:

“I do understand the frustration stated in Senator Newman’s bill. It becomes a haves vs. have nots where those who can afford it jump in front of the rest of us. They even cut in front of TSA Pre-boarding pass travelers who have been screened by the TSA.”

As you’d expect, opinions are all over the place regarding this proposal:

• Delta, United, Southwest, Alaska, JetBlue, and Hawaiian, are fighting this bill, claiming the revenue loss from CLEAR would lead to an increase in airfare
• The union representing TSA agents has stated that CLEAR is “nothing more than the luxury resale of upcharge of space in the airport security queue, where those who pay can skip the line at the direct expense of every other traveler”
• Sara Nelson, who leads flight attendant unions representing several airlines, has stated that “CLEAR is a pay for play way to cut the screening line,” and that this bill would “restore equal access and treatment at the airport security checkpoint”

Now, let me emphasize that this is just a proposal, and it’s anyone’s guess if it goes anywhere. I’m sure there will be a lot of lobbying efforts regarding this.

Is this bill aimed at CLEAR reasonable?

I’m sure opinions on this from the traveling public will be all over the place. Personally I think I’m supportive of this bill, but not necessarily for the reasons stated. I don’t view this as a “haves vs. have nots” or “rich person” thing. After all, California airports allow priority security lines for premium customers, with no effort to ban that. If all passengers should be treated equally, shouldn’t those lines be banned as well?

Personally I’m supportive of this because I just find CLEAR to be a ridiculously inefficient concept, and I just don’t find there to be much value to it, at least based on my travels:

• When CLEAR first started, it was a huge time saver, since not many people had it, so you actually saved a lot of time
• Now we’re at the point where basically everyone has CLEAR, and when everyone can cut the ID check, no one can cut the ID check
• The TSA ID check is really simple nowadays — in many cases you just insert your ID into a reader, and you’re sent on your way, and don’t even have to show your boarding pass
• Meanwhile the CLEAR process just isn’t simple; the CLEAR ambassador has to fingerprint themselves with every passenger, has to ask whether you want to use your fingers or eyes for verifying your identity, then a good percentage of the time you still have to show the TSA agent your ID, and never mind the small space through which you have to navigate
• Airport security checkpoints are often so small, and I feel space could be better utilized by expanding other, more efficient screening methods

As someone who has CLEAR, I find myself skipping CLEAR and just using the standard TSA PreCheck line more often than not, and that usually ends up being fastest. That’s despite the fact that I’m cut by a countless number of CLEAR members in line.

Bottom line

Lawmakers in California are considering a bill that could cause CLEAR to be banned from existing checkpoints. The argument is that it’s unfair that people can pay to cut the security line, and that if CLEAR wants to operate in the state, it should pay for its own security screening checkpoints.

Personally I think the argument is weak if it’s on equality grounds, since priority security lines are allowed in the state. However, I do find CLEAR to be mighty inefficient and a pain to use, and as far as I’m concerned, most people using security would be better off if CLEAR were just banned. But that’s just my take based on my observations with CLEAR, and I realize others feel differently.

What do you make of this CLEAR proposal in California?